Happiness or Knowledge

[thomas]

If you had to choose between spending your life persuing your happiness or spending your life persuing knowledge of the truth, which would you choose and why.

[HMS Beagle]

I'd have to say happiness, because when I look at my life, that's what I've done. But the reason undermines your question: A huge part of why I'm relatively happy is that a lot of my free time, and a great deal of my work, is spent pursuing knowledge. Often while drunk.

A counter question: Barstools are famously occupied by amateur philosophers. Are they pursuing happiness or knowledge?

[baric]

If you had to choose between spending your life persuing your happiness or spending your life persuing knowledge of the truth, which would you choose and why.
I have found that the pursuit of knowledge makes me happy so that makes the question a no-brainer, pun intended.

Knowledge.

[Another brick in the wall]

The pursuit of knowledge makes me happy. I guess I'm lucky that way.

[Another brick in the wall]

Oops, I just realized I wrote what someone else did. Sorry.

[Coldbourne]

A huge part of why I'm relatively happy is that a lot of my free time, and a great deal of my work, is spent pursuing knowledge. Often while drunk.
I heartily agree, oh modern sage.

[Philboid Studge]

Why is knowledge, in the Christian realm, posited as the antithesis to happiness or goodness? It starts in Eden, where partaking of the Tree of Knowledge marks the end of paradise. And it seems to continue now, where science in public schools is shunted aside so that creation myths (well, one particular creation myth) can get equal time.

[Little Earth Stamper]

I'm going to jump on the bandwagon and say that pursuing knowledge generally makes me happy, so I don't quite see how the two could be seperated.

And if we find out something unpleasent, then we can work to change it. If we remain oblivious to the bad things, then we can't combat them.

Hey, let's try putting the question in more concrete terms: Would you prefer to win $250 million in the lottery, and contribute pretty much nothing to our store of knowledge, or spend your life poor but discover something incredible, like the secret to cold fusion?

Although, again, it's hard to imagine the cold fusion thing wouldn't earn you accolades and a fair amount of wealth. I mean, the Nobel Prize has a cash component right?

[Guest_Listner]

I don't understand "persuing knowledge of the truth" - does this mean to 'persue awareness that The truth exists' or does it simply mean 'persuing The truth'? If I do the former then the truth (or the value of it) may evade me simply because I don't fully accept it (exists), if the latter, however, I will ultimately come to the knowledge of truth I am seeking because I accept it exists and am willing to sacrifice my beliefs (and feelings) to receive and live by it.

Anyway, I Place emphasis on seeking the truth (which I accept is real and eternal) Although 'the truth hurts' in the short term I find it brings lasting joy (happiness).

[StillSurviving]

What truth are you talking about? Is it the true answer to some difficult question? I don't feel like I have any truths missing in my life. No bothersome enigmas. So I'll try and increase my happiness quotient.

[Guest_Listner]

StillSurviving:

What does an atheist have to be happy about ? I'd like to know that - truthfully I would. I would also like to know what makes you feel sad and see if you have anything in common with me on these issues - without flaming or preaching on either side. I know this may sound like a condescending affrontery but I know we are probably miles appart in a major area and I just would like to explore aspects of our humanity without involving belief or non belief in a God.

As a start, if you have experience, are you sad when someone close dies and if so why ?
If this is sensitive or isn't appropriate then pick another subject.
If you'd like to make it an open - free for all debate from the start then say so.
If you don't want discussion that's OK too - sometimes I don't.

Take care,

Guest_Listner

:)

[ghoulslime]

StillSurviving:

What does an atheist have to be happy about ? I'd like to know that - truthfully I would. I would also like to know what makes you feel sad and see if you have anything in common with me on these issues - without flaming or preaching on either side. I know this may sound like a condescending affrontery but I know we are probably miles appart in a major area and I just would like to explore aspects of our humanity without involving belief or non belief in a God.

As a start, if you have experience, are you sad when someone close dies and if so why ?
If this is sensitive or isn't appropriate then pick another subject.
If you'd like to make it an open - free for all debate from the start then say so.
If you don't want discussion that's OK too - sometimes I don't.

Take care,

Guest_Listner

:)
This Atheist finds joy in everything he can. I have but one life. I live it to its fullest. I don't want to waste one second worrying about what some mythological deity wants me to do or not to do. If sitting in a building every Sunday, discussing your imaginary friend makes you happy, then power to you. I leave you to your blissful delusions. My religous family feels sorry for me because they think I am going to miss out on some spectacular afterlife reward. I feel sorry for them because they missed out on life.

[Guest_Listner]

What makes you happy and how important is happiness? Also, would your parents say they were unhappy ? Mine were desperately unhappy and would tell you that, but, they didn't share my beliefs. They lived very productive and worthwhile lives, however, and had no regrets. I don't think belief or non belief in a God or gods necessarily make people happy - or unhappy. I know some very happy Christians and some who will tell you they're unhappy - and they all struggle at times like the rest of humanity. I know non-Christians and Atheists who will tell you they're are happy too - and some not. What I wonder though is 'what' makes an atheist happy, 'what' makes him sad. Only because I have never been an atheist and I can't (because I am human) see what there could be to sustain happiness, or give me hope beyond sadness, if I didn't believe in a continuous life (not an afterlife) for eternity. perhaps the difference is that you can accept the idea that we die - period, and I can't ?! - I don't know.

Thank's and regards,

Guest_Listner

:)

[HMS Beagle]

Why is knowledge, in the Christian realm, posited as the antithesis to happiness or goodness? It starts in Eden, where partaking of the Tree of Knowledge marks the end of paradise. And it seems to continue now, where science in public schools is shunted aside so that creation myths (well, one particular creation myth) can get equal time.
No offense to Thomas' original question, but I find Philboid's question far more intriguing; in fact. I want to subscribe to his newsletter.

[Another brick in the wall]

I see we have a Simpsons fan here.

A few days ago, they showed the episode where Homer was missionary in the South Pacific.

Homer: Today's reading will be from the book of . . . puh-Salms.

[Guest_Listner]

Philboid Studge, HMS Beagle and all......

The tree you are refering to (I think) is described as the tree of the knowledge of good and evil - not, as you stated, the tree of knowledge.

regards,

Guest_Listner

:)

[ocmpoma]

"As a start, if you have experience, are you sad when someone close dies and if so why ?"

Yes, knowing that I will lack their company for the rest of my days makes me sad. I also have no security blanket to cheer me up, as those who believe in an afterlife do. I would think that Christians, for example, would have a party when someone died, since the deceased would now be in heaven. Mourning Christians strike me a hypocrtically selfish - the kinds of people who are upset when someone they know wins the lottery instead of them.

Oh - and definitely knowledge. Fuck happiness - it's over-rated.

[Philboid Studge]

The tree you are refering to (I think) is described as the tree of the knowledge of good and evil - not, as you stated, the tree of knowledge.
Thanks but, that's still knowledge. isn't it? And why would God want to keep that particular knowledge from us? Was He afraid that, being omnipotent as He is, knowledgable humans would conclude that evil must ultimately come from Him?

[Philboid Studge]

No offense to Thomas' original question, but I find Philboid's question far more intriguing; in fact. I want to subscribe to his newsletter.
Well, HMS, act now and I can offer reasonable rates. Be advised, though, that I will provide a fount of knowledge -- good, evil, the whole shebang. (I said "she bang." heh heh) [/Beavis]

[Guest_Listner]

Philboid Studge

Yes it is knowledge and the ONLY knowledge the bible says is not good for man. As for why 'I' think He wanted to keep this knowledge from us you will find my answer here.

You may be closer than you think in what you suggest - i.e. that God would be afraid that people would come to the conclusion that evil came from Him (hence the warning not to eat of the tree). This is probably how He would feel if He is holy and righteous - would you want your children to think you were evil ? would you expose them to knowledge which would 'ultimately' lead them to that conclusion. I wouldn't. But that is precisely the conclusion people have come to - read your words again. The trouble is, after warning of the consequences, man took the pill himself and now either denies or blames God. The trouble is, you can't deny someone away if He exists, and, you can't blame someone if He doesn't. You are either extremely sad or bad in your choice of words because you tend to blame with overtones of denial so which is it, are you sad because you can't lay your chips on the table, or, are you bad because you enjoy sarcasm ? Ultimately were born a sinner - just like me.

Regards,

Guest_Listner

:)

[Guest_Listner]

St. Teabag

I think you mean a historical character - we are refering to someone who came to Earth as a man I presume ? And if you doubt this the onus is on you to prove the written HISTORICAL accounts are fictional, or, that they are not historical accounts, or, that nobody has access to the truth they contain. Denial of someone who exists is futile - not to say ludicrous. Whilst you are about it - prove He's not alive too because to millions He is a living reality. Perhaps you would also like to prove to those X billion people around the world that the person they met - who you deny exists - can't possibly be real.

Your logic goes like this - I don't believe in him, therefore he doesn't exist - or, perhaps, he doesn't exist so it is illogical to believe in him. Whichever way you explain it denial can only be explained as a belief because you have no proof. My logic is this: I have met Him and I know He exists and it would be wrong to deny Him. But like you - I had to believe BEFORE I received the truth. I am suggesting to you - however - that lies are also accepted as truth if we believe. I 'know' what I have is the truth because I've met Him. You don't 'know' what you have is the truth because you haven't.

I hope you understand that last bit - think about it.


Regards,

Guest_Listner

:)

[Guest_Listner]

ocmpoma

The truth is, my father died 12 months ago an I did just what you reccommend for Christians - I celebrated. Have't shed a mournful tear. I am just as selfish as the next person though - I believe I was born that way - growing out of it every day as more and more selfishness is revealed. Pity so many are blind to their own.

Regards,

Guest_Listner

:)

[Guest_Listner]

ocmpoma

By the way - there is a good reason for mourning and a reason we all share but one atheists may not appreciate:

We were created to live eternally and the death of the body is a symptom of sin. We know deep down inside that we were not meant to die. So you see, it is quite appropriate for Christians to feel sorrow when someone dies - not necessarily selfish.

Regards,

Guest_Listner

:)

[Guest_Listner]

St. Teabag

That' fine - Dust wiped off my feet - gone.

[Thag - son of Thog]

I would rather know a painful truth than believe a comforting lie.
(Thag - son of Thog)

[Viole]

"There is no beauty without intelligence."

[Little Earth Stamper]

All this speculation of the g-man's motives is great and all, but in Genesis the reason he gives for kicking Adam and Eve out of Eden is that, if they were to also eat from the tree of imortality, they would be as gods.

There you have it, straight from the horses mouth.

Incidentally, GL, what is your basis foir denying the historical records of the Aztecs (Which specifically mention numerous instances of personal contact with the gods)?

[Choobus]

why don't you shut the fuck up about those backwards indians earth stamper? They don't prove anything

[Little Earth Stamper]

why don't you shut the fuck up about those backwards indians earth stamper? They don't prove anything
Do I know you from somewhere else?

[Philboid Studge]

This is probably how He would feel if He is holy and righteous - would you want your children to think you were evil ?
He would want to keep people from realizing he was the source of evil because he is holy and righteous? Your logic eludes me. Would I want my children to think I was evil? I would want my children to know the truth about me -- unless I was evil.

You are either extremely sad or bad in your choice of words because you tend to blame with overtones of denial so which is it, are you sad because you can't lay your chips on the table, or, are you bad because you enjoy sarcasm ? Ultimately were born a sinner - just like me.
You're just being silly. And I take offense at your presumption. If you want to believe you were born a sinner, go nuts. Leave me out of it.

[Guest_Listner]

Little Earth Stamper

This is what the bible says:

22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Note - Only in as much as man knows good and evil has he become 'as' one of us.
- No mention of 'if they were to also eat from the tree of imortality, they would be as gods' as you put it, simply, that having disobeyed their 'Father' they had become aware of good and evil and that now, they would receivie the consequences He forewarned - death.

About the Aztecs records:

I don't deny they exist and I don't deny they are historical. What I should do is question the content as I do with the bible.

Regards,

Guest_Listner

:)

[Guest_Listner]

Philboid Studge

I said (in a nutshell) he could be afraid that man would come to the 'conclusion' not the 'realization' - a conclusion can be wrong but a realization is always right.

God does want us to know the truth about Him. Knowing good and evil prevents this - can I spell it out any better - evil gives man a warped picture of who God is - that is what He wanted man to avoid. In other words, God has knowledge of good and evil and He can handle it - man didn't have the knowledge and would not be able to handle it.

Regards,

Guest_Listner

:)

[Philboid Studge]

If God knows everything, then He wasn't "afraid" of what humans would conclude -- He knew exactly what they would conclude. Moreover, He must have known in advance that humans would disobey Him. That is, if He knows everything. Does He?

If God created everything, then he created evil. So, if "evil gives man a warped picture of who God is," then whose fault is that? And how can something have happened that God "wanted man to avoid"? Isn't he all-powerful? Do you believe that some things can happen that God does not will?

Does God know everything?
Did God create everything?
Is God all-powerful?

From your nutshell, you seem to be saying 'no' to these questions.

[Thag - son of Thog]

The bottom line is - that all this good and evil that we see around us today is more easily explained by the "natural origins" of man. What and who we are --- are exactly what we'd expect with a naturalistic explanation.

But when they try to include god and "the fall of man" as the explanation for all this good and evil stuff they have to JUMP THROUGH HOOPS to make it work.

You have a silly story about two naked people in paradise, forbidden to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and being tempted by some evil snake. You have a god who created EVERYTHING, knows all, and is all powerful. And yet, in their attempt to remove any blame from their god they have to create this "FREE WILL" thingie to explain away all the contradictions.

Ultimately, considering the world that we observe every day, which makes more sense: the naturalistic explanation or the "guy in the sky" explanation?

I put my money on the former!

[Guest_Listner]

Philboid Studge

"If God knows everything, then He wasn't "afraid" of what humans would conclude -- He knew exactly what they would conclude. Moreover, He must have known in advance that humans would disobey Him. That is, if He knows everything. Does He?"


Just as you say - He wasn't afraid, He knew what they would conclude and He knew in advance that humans would disobey Him.
Yes, He does know everything.


"If God created everything, then he created evil. So, if "evil gives man a warped picture of who God is," then whose fault is that? And how can something have happened that God "wanted man to avoid"? Isn't he all-powerful? Do you believe that some things can happen that God does not will?"


If as you say God created evil, and, as I stated, evil gives man a warped picture of who God is, and, man disobeys God and eats the fruit after warning, then, it is man's fault because he was given free will and did what he was told would not be good for him. It isn't an issue that God knows what you are about to do, or, that he'd rather you didn't. The fact is, you choose to do it and He lets you. That's the point of free will. What makes you think an all powerful God would not allow something to happen just because He hates it ? - He knows the full picture. The point is, man's knowledge of good and evil will not last for ever and God will not continue to allow man to do just as he pleases - for the sake of those who want Him - He himself could handle it.

As for my nutshell - What God wants for man He isn't going to push on him. He doesn't push on you any more than you should push on your kids. He does, however, provide everything man needs if he asks - just like a father would do for his kid's - if he could.

Regards,

Guest_Listner

:)

[Philboid Studge]

So, you agree that God created evil. And you claim that God knew evil would give man a warped picture of His true nature. But it's man's fault for eating the fruit? Why did God create evil? Why did He create this frigging tree, for that matter? Why did he create us, for that matter, if he knew we would be seduced by the very evil He created? He sounds like a sadistic prick to me. Odd that you -- and most other xians -- think of this monster as a "father."


We can skip the lessons on free will vs. omnipotence. That discussion has been rehashed so many times in this forum it's beyond boring.

[Guest_Listner]

Thag - son of Thog

So this FREE WILL thingy is an invention of Christians/or Jews?! We all experience free will and only the most die-hard fatalist would deny that. Free will comes into the Christian explanation because that's precisely what we were given - free will. And yes, because this will is so totally free it would be wrong to blame anyone else for its inappropriate use - including God.

Regards,

Guest_Listner

:)

[Guest_Listner]

Philboid Studge

No, I did not agree that God created evil I said - 'If as you say God created evil'.

The tree of itself, as far as I am aware, was not evil. The tree's presence in the garden, as far as I'm aware, was not evil, God's warning was not evil, but, you seem to question all that - why ? He created people with free will and they must take the responsibility for its use. You do something bad and it is rewarded just like something good is rewarded - where's the difficulty in understanding that. Try asking any parent who wanted children why they wanted them and you may have some clue as to why God created man. Don't 'good' parents 'know' their unborn child will do some things wrong? Don't they 'know' they'll not live up to the parent's dreams and expectations of them so they plan to simply love and support them and can only help and advise when it's asked for? Why do you think God should be any different to them just because He could have His own way if He wished ? Could it be that he's not as selfish as we are and He values us more than He ought just like a parent ? - I think so.

Does a father make a child love him - no - but he's sure pleased if he does.

Regards,

Guest_Listner

:)

[Another brick in the wall]

Before Adam and Eve ate the apple, they had no knowledge of good and evil. How then could they be expected to obey god? If god is omniscient, why did he put the tree in the garden in the first place? Human parents are smart enough to hide potentially dangerous items from their children.

[Philboid Studge]

Guest Listener, I will answer all of your questions -- even the ones I think are besides the point -- if you answer mine:

Did God create evil?

The tree of itself, as far as I am aware, was not evil.
Who said it was? You said it God forbade us from touching its fruit because the knowledge of good and evil was too much for humans to handle. So why did God create it? You like father-God analogies, try this one: It would be like a parent building a dangerous jungle gym in his backyard, for no other reason than to forbid his kids from playing on it. Not only that, but the parent would know in advance that his kids would use it, and that they they'd hurt themselves! And the parent would look on from the distance and do nothing to stop his children from hurting themselves, even if it meant undermining their free will for a moment. Like I said, sadistic prick.

[ocmpoma]

Guest - if there is a good reason for mourning, as you say, why didn't you mourn?
Your justification, by the way, is just another example of how Christianity de-humanizes and belittles mankind.

Ultimately, you were born an atheist - just like me.

[HMS Beagle]

No, I did not agree that God created evil I said - 'If as you say God created evil'.
So God didn't create evil. Of course, that means he didn't create good either. The tree of knowledge contained both good and evil. So some Trespasser in God's garden created that dualistic apple tree. Who? Because Whoever it was is responsible for creating good, too. Which pretty much rules out the serpent. I'm guessing it was Allah, what with the cradle of civilization right there and all.

[Another brick in the wall]

I've always wondered if I actually have free will, or if my behavior is the inevitable result of chemical reactions in my brain plus the psychological conditioning I've received. I feel like I actively make my own decisions, but I can't prove that I do.

[Philboid Studge]

"There is no beauty without intelligence."
What about Britney Spears? she's quite attractive, but dumb as a bag of rocks.......
Or Madeleine Albright. Smart as a monkey, but not nearly as attractive.

[Another brick in the wall]

"There is no beauty without intelligence."

Like many wise-sounding sayings, it turns out to be wrong.

"But mom said beauty is on the inside."

"Oh, that's just something ugly people say."

Paraphrased from "Liar, Liar."

[Lundie]

I'd have to go with happiness. As an atheist who refutes the notion of afterlife, why should I not strive to make most of my one and only life?

Then again if the pursuit of knowledge makes others happy then by all means pursue it to the fullest.

[Another brick in the wall]

It's nice to strive for things like knowledge and happiness, but it's also important to be satisfied with what you have.

[Viole]

I never found miss Spears to be all that attractive. Probably had something to do with her lack of brains, inability to sing, and various other irredeemable(an exaggeration) features. Albright, on the other hand, is completely vile, which rather counters any good features. My view of beauty is extremely subjective, perhaps?

In all honesty, I know it is. Which goes to show that wise-sounding sayings do indeed hold some truth(though not all of it). Opinion always alters perception.

While we're on the topic of wise-sounding statements;

"Ignorance is bliss."

The perfect support for Christianity, is it not?

"It is better to know a painful fact than a comforting fiction."

"Knowledge is the root of all evil."

"Ignorance is the root of all evil."

Um... yeah.

[Another brick in the wall]

I thought money was the root of all evil?

[Philboid Studge]

I thought money was the root of all evil?
"But if you ask for a rise it’s no surprise that they’re giving none away..."

As you well know.

[Guest_Listner]

Another brick in the wall

It doesn't take knowledge of good and evil to obey anyone. Obedience, with trust, that your teacher, mother, doctor, trainer etc. are telling you how or what to do for you own safety, is a very well understood and necessary part of human learning. Have you never been in a position where you were trusting someone wiser than you to give you important or life saving instructions? - most have.

As for putting hazardous things in the way of children, well, some hazards are deemed necessary even about the home and the best we can do is teach the children to leave alone. Why do you think God would hide the tree if there was a good reason for it being there? I don't have to know the reason it's there to obey instructions not to eat from it. In fact, I don't know why it was there. God, however, thought in His wisdom, it would be best to have it there. If He's wiser than me then I accept He's right without question. Do your children blame you when when they disobey responsible instructions and are hurt as a result - they shouldn't.

Regards,

Guest_Listner

:)

[Philboid Studge]

Listner: Did God create evil or not?

You're free to give answers like "I don't have to know the reason ..." or "He's wiser than me then I accept He's right without question," but I can't say that does much for your argument -- or this discussion.

While you're at it you can take a stab at a follow-up question proffered by Epicurus, below.

[Another brick in the wall]

So if I told you to kiss my ass and gave no reason except "you must have faith in me" you would do so?

You're right about the part of not needing knowledge to obey. However, I think the examples you chose are not quite correct. I go to the doctor and trust his advice because he has helped me recover from illness in the past. I've also learned a little about medicine and health on my own, and so I can understand why the doctor tells me to do so and so. This a lot more than I can say for any god.

[Guest_Listner]

Philboid Studge

The best I can say is that I personally don't think God created evil. I do know this though - in creating a hole it is an unavoidable consequence that a mound of earth appears - think on it. maybe there is no appreciation of good if its counterpart is not there but I don't know - why should I ?

As for the rest, read my response to 'Another brick in the wall' and:

Yes, I like father/child analogies because to me that is the reality. He is not called Father by those who know Him for the fun of it or even out of respect.

There are times when all parents can only stand back and watch as their children make disastrous choices. It's about loving them enough to allow them to grow up and learn for themselves. Better that than to not have kids for fear that they won't make it. God is no different - why should He be just because He's all powerful. The point is, he would like His kids to learn (or not!) for themselves. He will also allow those who are persistantly resistant or hateful toward Him (and He knows who they are) reap their reward - which is sad for Him and them - but just. Where is the evil in that ?! There are those who will love Him, however, and it is for their sake that he delays judgement on the whole caboodle - and I am not trying the fear stuff on you here, I know that is wrong and it wouldn't work anyway - that, and, it is not scriptural to 'convert' - I am just telling it as I understand it.

Regards,

Guest_Listner

:)

[Another brick in the wall]

Apparently, our Father was content to let humans take hundreds of years to figure out what causes disease.

How do you know if god is wiser than you? What makes you think there is a god in the first place?

[Guest_Listner]

Another brick in the wall

Did you never hold someone's hand because they told you it was unsafe to cross the road on your own ? Did you do it in faith or ask a thousand and one questions in the middle of the road until a truck came and squashed you?

some people don't have any medical knowledge and have no choice but to trust a doctor.

If you can't or won't see the analogy then you really are hate-filled to the point of blindness or absolutely set on not agreeing with the truth - even though you know it to be true.

Regards,

Guest_Listner

:)

[Guest_Listner]

Philboid Studge

Just why, if we are having a discussion, do my comments do no good? Surely all comments are useful in discussion - particularly between two people who have such limited understanding of each other's point of view. I was not having or defending an argument, simply answering questions being asked by people who are either sincere or feigning sincerity in the asking.

As for 'Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? -- Epicurus '

I believe it's the other way around - He is able, but, for the time being, unwilling (to an extent He deems right and just) - If you ground your kids for disobedience do you relent if you think it would make things worse ? - no, even if you have to suffer, because you want them to grow up and be more responsible (for themselves) in the future. Why should God be any different ?

Regards,

Guest_Listner

:)

[fortytwo]

Philboid Studge

Yes it is knowledge and the ONLY knowledge the bible says is not good for man. As for why 'I' think He wanted to keep this knowledge from us you will find my answer here.

You may be closer than you think in what you suggest - i.e. that God would be afraid that people would come to the conclusion that evil came from Him (hence the warning not to eat of the tree). This is probably how He would feel if He is holy and righteous - would you want your children to think you were evil ? would you expose them to knowledge which would 'ultimately' lead them to that conclusion. I wouldn't. But that is precisely the conclusion people have come to - read your words again. The trouble is, after warning of the consequences, man took the pill himself and now either denies or blames God. The trouble is, you can't deny someone away if He exists, and, you can't blame someone if He doesn't. You are either extremely sad or bad in your choice of words because you tend to blame with overtones of denial so which is it, are you sad because you can't lay your chips on the table, or, are you bad because you enjoy sarcasm ? Ultimately were born a sinner - just like me.

Regards,

Guest_Listner

:)
I'm glad I can clear a few things up for you, Guest_Listner.

1. Why didn't God want Adam and Eve to eat from the tree?

In Genesis 3:22 (just after the Fall) it says: "And the LORD God said, 'The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.' "

That's right. God told them not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil because he didn't want rivals; he wanted worshipers. He kicked them out of Eden so they wouldn't eat of the tree of life, thereby becoming his equals. He would rather have them die! (What's that you say about a loving God?)

2. Would the knowledge of good and evil make people "come to the conclusion that evil came from Him"?

That question is irrelevant, really. Just read your Bible - evil does come from God!

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7)


(Don't you love using their own bible against them?)

[fortytwo]

The best I can say is that I personally don't think God created evil. I do know this though - in creating a hole it is an unavoidable consequence that a mound of earth appears - think on it. maybe there is no appreciation of good if its counterpart is not there but I don't know - why should I ?
Oh, but God can do anything, right? Plus, what if you just create a hole by packing the dirt down really hard? Voila! No mound of earth!

There are times when all parents can only stand back and watch as their children make disastrous choices. It's about loving them enough to allow them to grow up and learn for themselves. Better that than to not have kids for fear that they won't make it.
But God is omniscient, right? Even before he created Adam and Eve, he KNEW they would screw up. Human parents worry about their kids, but they can hope they'll make it. For God, that's not an option, because he already knows.

[Guest_Listner]

ocmpoma

I didn't mourn because my joy at the knowledge that my father would be safe and happy for eternity overrode the 'natural' feelings of remorse at his loss. I believed that we were meant to live for eternity in a way even most Christians don't have the capacity to believe. I can't wait to see him again though which is a concept so many in this forum would find strange. Some Christians have difficulty, or, lack faith that the person is truly in heaven and some are selfish enough to miss the person for themselves - hence the mourning. I lack faith in other areas - I continue to 'grow'.

How can my reasoning be de-humanizing or belittling - I haven't been belittled or de-humanized and you won't be because you don't believe.

Perhaps you think I am belittling or de-humanizing you - the truth is Christians know just how de-humanized they themselves already are and they wrestle with it daily. We just don't want to be that way anymore. The world is full of twisted, bitter people who are full of selfishness, greed, lust, envy, pride etc. (Christians included!) and most are not even aware of it. The problem between Christians and non-Christians is that Christians are trying to grow up and out of selfishness - and it shows - and most non-christians are bothered because they're happy to be as they are and feel threatened.

If you need evidence of de-humanized man, look on the web. There's stuff worse than hell razor going on in people's homes, pop-up windows with some of the sickest most evil child porn, Necrophilia and zoophilia enough to make you guts drop out - It's there for the finding, but, of course, Christians are guilty of de-humanizing and they shouldn't judge what others get up to - wake-up and smell the coffee.

Regards,

Guest_Listner

:)

[fortytwo]

Did you never hold someone's hand because they told you it was unsafe to cross the road on your own ? Did you do it in faith or ask a thousand and one questions in the middle of the road until a truck came and squashed you?
No, silly, you ask the questions before they drag you out into the middle of the road.

some people don't have any medical knowledge and have no choice but to trust a doctor.
But those people can at least check their doctor's reputation, or get a second opinion. They don't have to trust the first guy to come along and tell them what they can and can't do.

If you can't or won't see the analogy then you really are hate-filled to the point of blindness or absolutely set on not agreeing with the truth - even though you know it to be true.
Ah, the accusations begin. What if I told you there was a three-eyed, twelve-legged, purple-and-green-polka-dotted firebreathing llama in my bathroom? What if I said that the only way to avoid an eternity of suffering was by believing in The Llama?

WHAT?? You don't believe me?? Either you're full of hate, or you're determined not to agree with me, even though you know I'm right.

So there.

[Guest_Listner]

fortytwo

so you'd try to use God's word against Him - no way and no challenge.



"1. Why didn't God want Adam and Eve to eat from the tree?

In Genesis 3:22 (just after the Fall) it says: "And the LORD God said, 'The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.' "

That's right. God told them not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil because he didn't want rivals; he wanted worshipers. He kicked them out of Eden so they wouldn't eat of the tree of life, thereby becoming his equals. He would rather have them die! (What's that you say about a loving God?)"



Where in the WHOLE bible does God say His reason for not allowing Adam to take from the tree of life was because He didn't want rivals ?
He would not allow it because He had told Adam and Eve they would die if they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil - end of story - just another example of someone trying to tell God and everyone else what God meant to say but didn't.

He does want worshippers though - and He deserves them - ask anyone who has worshipped Him.



"2. Would the knowledge of good and evil make people "come to the conclusion that evil came from Him"?

That question is irrelevant, really. Just read your Bible - evil does come from God!

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7)"



Even non-Christians know there are different translations of the bible - some of them have verses that don't seem to make sense. They even know there are copy errors written in places. You, however, like to believe that Christians believe blindly what any translation says because it suits the purpose of shooting them down - guess what - it don't work.

In this instance, you have chosen a copy with the word evil written in it but that word is not evil as you prefer to understand it. Try the following:

Isaiah 45:7 contrasts opposites. Darkness is the opposite of light. However, evil is not the opposite of peace. The Hebrew word translated "peace" is shâlôm,2 which has many meanings, mostly related to the well being of individuals. Râ‛âh,3 the Hebrew word translated "evil" in the KJV often refers to adversity or calamity. There are two forms of the word. Strong's H7451a most often refers to moral evil, whereas ****Strong's H7451b (the form used here) most often refers to calamity or distress. Obviously, "calamity" is a better antonym of "peace" than "evil."****

So much for Christians reading the bible litterally and so much for them not questioning the bible.

Just for interest, here are two more verses to comfort yourself with - or not - I warn you though - if you take them literally you'll be called a literallist and if you don't you'll be accused of twisting scripture to suit yourself:


*Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it? (Amos 3:6, KJV)

*Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? (Lamentations 3:38)

Regards,

Guest_Listner

:)

[fortytwo]

so you'd try to use God's word against Him - no way and no challenge.
I'm not using God's word against him - I'm using your favorite book against you. There's a difference.

You didn't think I actually believed that crap, did you?

"1. Why didn't God want Adam and Eve to eat from the tree?

In Genesis 3:22 (just after the Fall) it says: "And the LORD God said, 'The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.' "

That's right. God told them not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil because he didn't want rivals; he wanted worshipers. He kicked them out of Eden so they wouldn't eat of the tree of life, thereby becoming his equals. He would rather have them die! (What's that you say about a loving God?)"



Where in the WHOLE bible does God say His reason for not allowing Adam to take from the tree of life was because He didn't want rivals ?
He would not allow it because He had told Adam and Eve they would die if they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil - end of story - just another example of someone trying to tell God and everyone else what God meant to say but didn't.

He does want worshippers though - and He deserves them - ask anyone who has worshipped Him.



"2. Would the knowledge of good and evil make people "come to the conclusion that evil came from Him"?

That question is irrelevant, really. Just read your Bible - evil does come from God!

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7)"



Even non-Christians know there are different translations of the bible - some of them have verses that don't seem to make sense. They even know there are copy errors written in places. You, however, like to believe that Christians believe blindly what any translation says because it suits the purpose of shooting them down - guess what - it don't work.

In this instance, you have chosen a copy with the word evil written in it but that word is not evil as you prefer to understand it. Try the following:

Isaiah 45:7 contrasts opposites. Darkness is the opposite of light. However, evil is not the opposite of peace. The Hebrew word translated "peace" is shâlôm,2 which has many meanings, mostly related to the well being of individuals. Râ?âh,3 the Hebrew word translated "evil" in the KJV often refers to adversity or calamity. There are two forms of the word. Strong's H7451a most often refers to moral evil, whereas ****Strong's H7451b (the form used here) most often refers to calamity or distress. Obviously, "calamity" is a better antonym of "peace" than "evil."****

So much for Christians reading the bible litterally and so much for them not questioning the bible.
So much for Christians having an original thought. If you're going to defend the silly book, at least try to do it without plagiarizing!

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/evil.html

Just for interest, here are two more verses to comfort yourself with - or not - I warn you though - if you take them literally you'll be called a literallist and if you don't you'll be accused of twisting scripture to suit yourself:
...and if I take them as hilarious religious drivel I'll be called an atheist. Fair enough.

*Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it? (Amos 3:6, KJV)

*Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? (Lamentations 3:38)
Hmmm... I wonder where those quotes came from? Oh wait! I think I know!

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/evil.html

[Guest_Listner]

fortytwo

So you never had faith in your parent/guardian

Next.................

I said they have no choice but to trust 'A' doctor, not the first one they met.
I also said some people have no choice - you know, like a severely handicapped or blind and deaf person or someone with not enough intelligence to check out their food cupboards let alone the doctor. Have you no idea what the words 'have no choice' mean or did you read into my words what you wanted them to say?

I guess the latter.

Yes - If you can't or won't see the analogy then you really are hate-filled to the point of blindness or absolutely set on not agreeing with the truth - even though you know it to be true.

But you're allowed - it's only us Christians who are expected to be perfect isn't it - guess what - we are not and have never claimed to be.

......wiped the dust from my feet - gone.

[fortytwo]

fortytwo

So you never had faith in your parent/guardian
Well, I had faith in them when I was six, but I grew out of it. Kinda like I grew out of religion.

Next.................

I said they have no choice but to trust 'A' doctor, not the first one they met.
I also said some people have no choice - you know, like a severely handicapped or blind and deaf person or someone with not enough intelligence to check out their food cupboards let alone the doctor. Have you no idea what the words 'have no choice' mean or did you read into my words what you wanted them to say?

I guess the latter.
Key phrase: "not enough intelligence." Meaning that smart people DO question others and try to avoid trusting strangers.

Yes - If you can't or won't see the analogy then you really are hate-filled to the point of blindness or absolutely set on not agreeing with the truth - even though you know it to be true.
Oh, I see the analogy you're trying to make. I just enjoy poking holes in it, because it's a crappy analogy.

But you're allowed - it's only us Christians who are expected to be perfect isn't it - guess what - we are not and have never claimed to be.

......wiped the dust from my feet - gone.
Aww, you're leaving? But I wanted to play some more!

And you never answered me about The Llama...

[Little Earth Stamper]

Back on topic, where do we draw the line between pursuit of hapiness and pursuit of knowledge?

To use a real world example, suppose I do copious research to decide how to best invest my money; Does that count as searching for knowledge, or hapiness?

[Philboid Studge]

Back on topic, where do we draw the line between pursuit of hapiness and pursuit of knowledge?

To use a real world example, suppose I do copious research to decide how to best invest my money; Does that count as searching for knowledge, or hapiness?
Or to use a highly unlikely example, suppose Ghoulslime decides to go to college because he thinks it will finally get him laid. Is he pursuing knowledge, happiness, or just tail?

[Philboid Studge]

As for 'Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? -- Epicurus '

I believe it's the other way around - He is able, but, for the time being, unwilling (to an extent He deems right and just) - If you ground your kids for disobedience do you relent if you think it would make things worse ? - no, even if you have to suffer, because you want them to grow up and be more responsible (for themselves) in the future. Why should God be any different ?
Listner, look at it another way. God lets evil lurk among us -- whether in the form of Hitler or bin Laden or my utter lack of faith. Do these things really help humans "be more responsible"? Come now. Now, look at you -- you're willing to excuse God's perfidy at every turn, calling it good for us -- and when you don't have a rationale for His abhorrent behavior, you say He's wiser than you and He must have His reasons. Now look at me. I don't believe in any of this. It is all I can do to remain polite with you, because you might as might as well be telling me that you worship Screaming Blue Ants, who in Their infinite wisdom and industriousness will protect and love us forever. Why do you have faith and I have scorn and derision? God made both of us, didn't he? What makes you so special? You get eternal salvation and I get a lake of fire? That doesn't strike me as fair. Everything that makes me an atheist came from Him. Even the Free Willy stuff: I exercise my free will based on my environment and upbringing and perhaps Satan, and everything I've learned and experienced has sucked all the faith in God out of me. But everything I've learned and experienced came from God -- in your view. Anyway, I ate from the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil, and learned that God does not exist. You remain blissfully ignorant, which I suppose means advantage, you.

Just why, if we are having a discussion, do my comments do no good? Surely all comments are useful in discussion - particularly between two people who have such limited understanding of each other's point of view.
Why? Because what's the point of saying things like "He's wiser than me then I accept He's right without question," every time you get stumped for an answer? It's kind of an easy way out, isn't it? And if you've been reading all the comments posted here, you can't honestly tell me they're all "useful." And don't call me "Shirley."

You said "He will also allow those who are persistently resistant or hateful toward Him (and He knows who they are) reap their reward ..." I suppose you're right: my reward is a full and happy life that will end one day. Your reward is an unshakable belief in the Screaming Blue Ants.

[Rhinoqulous]

It doesn't take knowledge of good and evil to obey anyone. Obedience, with trust, that your teacher, mother, doctor, trainer etc. are telling you how or what to do for you own safety, is a very well understood and necessary part of human learning. Have you never been in a position where you were trusting someone wiser than you to give you important or life saving instructions? - most have.
If A and E didn't have knowledge of good or evil, they couldn't distinguish between bad and good. They would have no way of determining if their actions were moral or not, and hence, were not responsible for their own actions. Without the ability to distinguish between good/evil, free will becomes pretty trivial.

Thus, A and E eating from the Tree of Knowledge was not an immoral act, because A and E had no way of determining if their actions were good or bad until after they ate the fruit. God punishing them was immoral, because he was punishing people who had no way of knowing that their action was bad. It's like beating a six month year old baby for spilling some milk; you may have told the baby not to spill the milk, but the command is meaningless to the baby.

Big Poppa G is a dick.

[Little Earth Stamper]

The problem with the child analogy is that the god of conventional Christian theology doesn't allow or want us to ever grow up; We are not being taught about pain and suffering so we can grow up into equals of god; When we are in heaven or hell we will still be expected to obey god unconditionally. In fact, the ultimate goal is to eliminate all disagreements with god, so free will seems rather counter-productive.

Why bother with free will when there are only two choices, one of which involves no benefit? It's like saying we shouldn't put guardrails on the highway because it interferes with people's right to drive off of cliffs.

Lastly, the god worshipped by most Christians clearly has the scope to limit our suffering or disobedience to a much greater extent then he actually does.

[HeWhoAsks]

It doesn't take knowledge of good and evil to obey anyone. Obedience, with trust, that your teacher, mother, doctor, trainer etc. are telling you how or what to do for you own safety, is a very well understood and necessary part of human learning. Have you never been in a position where you were trusting someone wiser than you to give you important or life saving instructions? - most have.
If A and E didn't have knowledge of good or evil, they couldn't distinguish between bad and good. They would have no way of determining if their actions were moral or not, and hence, were not responsible for their own actions. Without the ability to distinguish between good/evil, free will becomes pretty trivial.
LOL! I've never heard this analysis of A & E and the fruit of the tree of knowledge. It's obvious, true, and brilliant.

[StillSurviving]

StillSurviving:

What does an atheist have to be happy about ? I'd like to know that - truthfully I would.
The thing that brings me the most happiness is my relationship with my fiancee.

I would also like to know what makes you feel sad and see if you have anything in common with me on these issues
What makes me sad is when bad things happens to the people I care about.

As a start, if you have experience, are you sad when someone close dies and if so why ?
Yes, I am sad when someone I care for dies. I feel sad because I will miss them.

[StillSurviving]

I have some questions of my own. If you rely on the word of God for your moral code, did you recognize those morals as right when they were presented to you, and if so, how?

[ocmpoma]

Christianity's lovely little 'everything was great until worthless humans disobeyed and ruined it and now we are all born sinners and live pathetic little lives wherein we are lucky that we get a chance to kiss our Lord Yahweh's ass once a week and do whatever it says to do so that maybe things will be cool like they were before the whole 'apple tree' incident' is the de-humanizing and belittling part of your rationalization.

[ocmpoma]

"Without the ability to distinguish between good/evil, free will becomes pretty trivial."

Not to mention the whole punishment thing becomes even more sadistic, like beating a one-week old child with a hickory switch because it drooled.

[thomas]

If A and E didn't have knowledge of good or evil, they couldn't distinguish between bad and good. They would have no way of determining if their actions were moral or not, and hence, were not responsible for their own actions. Without the ability to distinguish between good/evil, free will becomes pretty trivial.
I'd say that the tree gave them knowledge of good and evil not because they did not know that it was right to obey God and wrong to disobey God but because this first act of disobeying God gave them a practical knowledge of what it was to make a morally bad choice.

[Tenspace]

If A and E didn't have knowledge of good or evil, they couldn't distinguish between bad and good. They would have no way of determining if their actions were moral or not, and hence, were not responsible for their own actions. Without the ability to distinguish between good/evil, free will becomes pretty trivial.
I'd say that the tree gave them knowledge of good and evil not because they did not know that it was right to obey God and wrong to disobey God but because this first act of disobeying God gave them a practical knowledge of what it was to make a morally bad choice.
Then why did that one act of gaining knowledge screw up life for the rest of us? Wasn't Womankind stricken with painful childbirth as a result of this disobedience?

Tenspace

[Rhinoqulous]

I'd say that the tree gave them knowledge of good and evil not because they did not know that it was right to obey God and wrong to disobey God but because this first act of disobeying God gave them a practical knowledge of what it was to make a morally bad choice.
But if they didn't have the knowledge of a morally good vs. morally bad choice, how can their disobedience be immoral? It seems any action by A and E could only be considered amoral prior to their gaining the ability to distinguish good/evil actions. If eating the fruit gave them moral knowledge, they didn't have the ability to know that disobeying Poppa G was wrong, and hence their punishment (pain and death) by God is immoral.

Sorry thomas, this story doesn't make any sense. If Adam and Eve gained knowledge of good and evil from eating of the tree of knowledge, they can't be considered moral agents prior to eating the fruit, and hence are not morally responsible for their actions prior to eating the fruit (including the eating of the fruit itself).

Rhinoq

[HeWhoAsks]

I'd say that the tree gave them knowledge of good and evil not because they did not know that it was right to obey God and wrong to disobey God but because this first act of disobeying God gave them a practical knowledge of what it was to make a morally bad choice.
Thomas, you're missing the whole point. When they decided to eat the apple (seconds before their teeth actually touched the apple), they had no knowledge of good or evil, so they can't be held responsible for knowing that eating the apple was evil.

It's impossible to say that, before eating the apple, A & E had no knowledge of good vs evil, but somehow they decided to do something against god. How could it be that they were pure but somehow decided to break the rules?! It makes no sense. They'd have to be impure *before* they decided to break the rules. But they were pure before they broke the rules. Breaking the rules can't have made them capable of breaking the rules. The timeline is all wrong.

[thomas]

But if they didn't have the knowledge of a morally good vs. morally bad choice, how can their disobedience be immoral? It seems any action by A and E could only be considered amoral prior to their gaining the ability to distinguish good/evil actions. If eating the fruit gave them moral knowledge, they didn't have the ability to know that disobeying Poppa G was wrong, and hence their punishment (pain and death) by God is immoral.

Sorry thomas, this story doesn't make any sense. If Adam and Eve gained knowledge of good and evil from eating of the tree of knowledge, they can't be considered moral agents prior to eating the fruit, and hence are not morally responsible for their actions prior to eating the fruit (including the eating of the fruit itself).

Rhinoq
Well, it makes sense to me.

I'm saying that they were moral agents prior to eating the fruit, due to their nature. They were told what they should not do and the consequences of doing it. They obviously had the ability to choose if they did it or not. In what sense were they not moral agents ? What is it they you think they didn't know ?

As I said before, they gained practical knowledge of good and evil when they chose to disobey God.

[thomas]

Thomas, you're missing the whole point. When they decided to eat the apple (seconds before their teeth actually touched the apple), they had no knowledge of good or evil, so they can't be held responsible for knowing that eating the apple was evil.

It's impossible to say that, before eating the apple, A & E had no knowledge of good vs evil, but somehow they decided to do something against god. How could it be that they were pure but somehow decided to break the rules?! It makes no sense. They'd have to be impure *before* they decided to break the rules. But they were pure before they broke the rules. Breaking the rules can't have made them capable of breaking the rules. The timeline is all wrong.
I'm not missing the point. I get the point. I'm making a distinction. You say they had no knowledge of good or evil. How do you know that ? I think you are just making an inference based on the text. Well, so am I. See my repsonse to Rhinoq.

[HeWhoAsks]

I'm not missing the point. I get the point. I'm making a distinction. You say they had no knowledge of good or evil. How do you know that ?
That's easy. Genesis 3:22. "The man . . . [knows] good and evil." That's after they ate the apple.
I think you are just making an inference based on the text.
Some inferences are justified, and some aren't.
See my repsonse to Rhinoq.
I see that response. What do you mean by "moral agent?" I suspect that, after a long discussion, a moral agent can only mean "know right from wrong (good from evil)." I think you're going after what is called a distinction without a difference.

[Philboid Studge]

They were told what they should not do and the consequences of doing it
They were told what to do by the snake, too, who also told them the consequences. But since they did not yet possess the knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong, how could they possibly make an informed decision as to who was telling the truth? The fact that God would punish them -- and the rest of humanity -- for following their nature as humans is an atrocity.

[darek_k]

Hi,
From my point of view Happiness always give pleasure .
Happiness is simply an emotional state of feeling good, of being free from pain and unpleasant emotions.
However, once we understand the mechanics and principles of Happiness, we realize that there is no need for and no point in being unhappy, ever.

[Rhinoqulous]

Well, it makes sense to me.

I'm saying that they were moral agents prior to eating the fruit, due to their nature. They were told what they should not do and the consequences of doing it. They obviously had the ability to choose if they did it or not. In what sense were they not moral agents ? What is it they you think they didn't know ?

As I said before, they gained practical knowledge of good and evil when they chose to disobey God.
Genesis chapter three doesn't seem to be a case of practical knowledge.

3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

This seems to imply that prior to eating the fruit, A and E were "innocents", with eyes closed to distinctions between good/evil, moral/immoral. If, as you suggest, all A & E gained was experience (practical knowledge), in what way were their "eyes opened"? It seems that this "magic fruit" gave more than just an experience of disobedience.

If you still maintain that A & E were moral agents prior to eating the fruit, then in what way were their "eyes opened", and how does gaining practical knowledge make them "as gods"?

Rhinoq

[thomas]

Rhinoq. You're quoting the snake not God. The snake is deceiving Eve by lying to her. His words are not to be trusted. It's interesting to me that the line of the atheists on this site when interpreting Genesis is to say that they believe the snake.

God said "You are free to eat from any tree of the garden, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you eat from it, you will certainly die.". Like I said he gave them a clear moral choice, to obey Him or not. The act of eating the fruit was the first instance of them exercising their freedom to make a bad moral choice.

[Philboid Studge]

You're quoting the snake not God. The snake is deceiving Eve by lying to her. His words are not to be trusted. It's interesting to me that the line of the atheists on this site when interpreting Genesis is to say that they believe the snake.
Again, how would they know God was telling the truth? Or that disobeying Him would be immoral? Because He said so? But they did not yet have the capacity to UNDERSTAND right from wrong, cuz they hadn't eaten the fruit yet. And around and around we go ...

[thomas]

But they did not yet have the capacity to UNDERSTAND right from wrong, cuz they hadn't eaten the fruit yet. And around and around we go ...
Where in the text does it specifically say that Adam and Eve did not have the capacity to understand right from wrong, prior to eating the fruit ? The text is mute on the subject. I'm saying that they did have such an understanding.

[Philboid Studge]

Where in the text does it specifically say that Adam and Eve did not have the capacity to understand right from wrong
If you've been following this thread, you'd see that the thesis has been posed that A&E were prohibited from partaking of the Tree of Knowledge because the knowledge was of good an evil. I see you don't believe that anymore than I do.

Anyway, even if you don't support that thesis, how would they know right from wrong? Actually, don't answer that question, anser this one: Why did A&E disobey God? Was it simply their nature to do so? Nurture?

[Rhinoqulous]

Rhinoq. You're quoting the snake not God. The snake is deceiving Eve by lying to her. His words are not to be trusted. It's interesting to me that the line of the atheists on this site when interpreting Genesis is to say that they believe the snake.
Oops, my bad. Let me wipe the egg off me face.

God said "You are free to eat from any tree of the garden, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you eat from it, you will certainly die.". Like I said he gave them a clear moral choice, to obey Him or not. The act of eating the fruit was the first instance of them exercising their freedom to make a bad moral choice.
Yes, but if God gave A and E a moral choice prior to eating the fruit, in what way did the fruit give them knowledge of good and evil? If they had the ability to distinguish good and bad choices prior to eating, the fruit doesn't seem to do much of anything (unless you are making some point about the nature of knowledge similar to Jackson in What Mary Didn't Know, which you can read about here (http://members.aol.com/NeoNoetics/Mary.html)).

Rhinoq

[thomas]

I'm proposing that eating the fruit gave them a practical knowledge of actually making a morally bad choice and its consequences.

[Philboid Studge]

I'm proposing that eating the fruit gave them a practical knowledge of actually making a morally bad choice and its consequences.
So, BEFORE they ate the fruit they had no such practical knowledge? Why'd they do it?

[Tenspace]

Point 1: Eve knew before her conversation with the snake that it was wrong to eat from the tree: (Gen 3:2) And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: (Gen 3:3) But of the fruit of the tree which in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

Point 2: God lied to Adam and Eve, for he did not kill them immediately as he promised.

Point 3: Maybe if God wasn't so stingy with his knowledge of good and evil, Eve would have understood what a lie was, and would have been better prepared to deal with a lying talking snake.

Point 4: Since I don't believe any of this really happened, I find humor in discussing it in a factual manner. Kinda like arguing who would win a fight, Darth Vader or Gandalf. :)

Tenspace

[Philboid Studge]

Point 5: God, knowing all, knew in advance that everything that happened, would happen. Prick.

[thomas]

Point 1: Eve knew before her conversation with the snake that it was wrong to eat from the tree: (Gen 3:2) And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: (Gen 3:3) But of the fruit of the tree which in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

Point 2: God lied to Adam and Eve, for he did not kill them immediately as he promised.

Point 3: Maybe if God wasn't so stingy with his knowledge of good and evil, Eve would have understood what a lie was, and would have been better prepared to deal with a lying talking snake.

Point 4: Since I don't believe any of this really happened, I find humor in discussing it in a factual manner. Kinda like arguing who would win a fight, Darth Vader or Gandalf. :)

Tenspace
Point 1. I agree
Point 2. Interesting one this. Some say that Adam and Eve were immortal before they ate the fruit, and so God did make them die by making them mortal afterwards. Others say that in sinning against God they died a spiritual death, a separation from God. Some, like you, say that God was a liar.
Point 3. As you showed in Point 1 Eve did have knowledge of good and evil. But also she and Adam had the ability to be deceived.
Point 4. I don't think it really happened either. But unlike a fight between Vader and Gandalf (surely good would triumph :) ) I think it contains important truths that are true for all people. It says that were created in the image of God, that we have the ability to do good or evil, that we have a will that is capable of choosing between those two things and that there are consequences related to our actions. It also describes how the impact of that effects our relationship with our creator.

[Rhinoqulous]

Point 4: Since I don't believe any of this really happened, I find humor in discussing it in a factual manner. Kinda like arguing who would win a fight, Darth Vader or Gandalf. :)

Tenspace
Yeah, I don't believe any of this either, but it's fun to argue about. :D

... and Vader would school Gandalf, no doubt in my mind. :P

Rhinoq

[thomas]

... and Vader would school Gandalf, no doubt in my mind. :P
Only if he could use his death star. In hand to hand combat, a little bit of throat squeezing would be no match for Gandalf's magic. He could take him down with a couple of those fancy fireworks.

[Viole]

Have we considered that Adam and Eve might not even know what death was? Only by risking death can you really understand it; you might see it, and pity the mortal, you might even mourn their passing, but you can never understand what it means to them, and you certainly never fear death.

Oh, and Thomas, in Peter Jackson's Travesty 'Return of the King', Gandalf's staff is broken by the Witch King of Angmar, better known to you as the Lord of the Nazgul. The Witch King is then slain by Ëowyn. If you're relying on the movies, I'm afraid Gandalf is doomed.

[fortytwo]

God said "You are free to eat from any tree of the garden, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you eat from it, you will certainly die.". Like I said he gave them a clear moral choice, to obey Him or not. The act of eating the fruit was the first instance of them exercising their freedom to make a bad moral choice.
He gave them a clear choice, but it's not a moral one. It's like a parent telling their child, "Don't touch the stove, or you'll get burned." (Technically, in God's case it's "or I'll burn you," but let's not get into that...) What moral value is at stake here?

He wasn't forbidding them; he was warning them about the possible consequences. Thus, their decision to go ahead and eat the fruit was NOT disobedience.

I was going somewhere really cool with this idea, but I can't quite remember now. Ah, well.

[Rhinoqulous]

Have we considered that Adam and Eve might not even know what death was? Only by risking death can you really understand it; you might see it, and pity the mortal, you might even mourn their passing, but you can never understand what it means to them, and you certainly never fear death.
Good point. If I told you not to eat a pie on fear of gavagui, you probably won't be filled with dread. What's gavagui? It could be a firm spanking, torture by a thousand knives, or even a tasty sandwich. If A & E didn't understand the consequences of their actions, they weren’t fully moral agents.

Rhinoq

[Philboid Studge]

I am filled with dread of the unknown. What the hell is gavagui?

(please be a spanking please be a spanking please be a spanking)

[thomas]

He gave them a clear choice, but it's not a moral one. It's like a parent telling their child, "Don't touch the stove, or you'll get burned." (Technically, in God's case it's "or I'll burn you," but let's not get into that...) What moral value is at stake here?
The moral value of obedience to your creator. Its an absolute moral value of the Bible.

He wasn't forbidding them; he was warning them about the possible consequences. Thus, their decision to go ahead and eat the fruit was NOT disobedience.
In what way is not doing what you're told by an authority not disobedience ?

[thomas]

Have we considered that Adam and Eve might not even know what death was? Only by risking death can you really understand it; you might see it, and pity the mortal, you might even mourn their passing, but you can never understand what it means to them, and you certainly never fear death.
Good point. If I told you not to eat a pie on fear of gavagui, you probably won't be filled with dread. What's gavagui? It could be a firm spanking, torture by a thousand knives, or even a tasty sandwich. If A & E didn't understand the consequences of their actions, they weren’t fully moral agents.

Rhinoq
I think we'll descend into a form of madness unless we can assume that Adam and Eve could actually understand the language and concepts being used by God ( and the snake ).

[Philboid Studge]

In what way is not doing what you're told by an authority not disobedience ?
Well, they thought of the snake as an authority-figure too. Who wouldn't?

Anyway you're dodging the real question: Why did they eat the apple?

[thomas]

Then the woman saw that the tree was good for food and delightful to look at, and that it was desirable for obtaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate
Eve ate the apple because she thought her opinion and desires were more important than obeying the command of God

[Philboid Studge]

Eve ate the apple because she thought her opinion and desires were more important than obeying the command of God
Okay, good. And thank you. Now, I promise I won't just keeping asking "why" into infinity but, why would she think such a thing? Human nature? Nurture? (You see where I'm going with this?)

[Tenspace]

Delving a bit deeper, how did Adam know what a father and mother were, if he was the first human and therefore, had no experience of a biological father and mother?

And did Eve eat the apple because she thought her desires were more important than obeying God, or because she was hungry for knowledge?

And why is it, the very first task performed by A&E after gaining this knowledge was to realize, "Oooh, we have private parts that are shameful, we should cover them up."

Oh yeah, where did they learn to sew?

I consider Genesis so ridiculous that it invalidates the rest of the bible.

Tenspace

[thomas]

Okay, good. And thank you. Now, I promise I won't just keeping asking "why" into infinity but, why would she think such a thing? Human nature? Nurture? (You see where I'm going with this?)
Yes, I see where you are going, and it is a deep question.

I think it is human nature, because humans have free-will. And I think we are created to be able to choose good and bad outcomes. And I think we are created to be able to act on those choices.

Now I guess you'll have another Why ? question about this answer. And I think the answer is "relationship". I think the elements of human nature above are essential to allow relationship between the creator and the creature. The closest I come to an explanation is to say that the prize of allowing real relationship with God is greater than the consequences of allowing free-will.

[thomas]

I consider Genesis so ridiculous that it invalidates the rest of the bible.
If you look at the story as a myth it is less ridiculous. It is attempting to answer questions about why the world works the way it does. Why is there suffering ? Why do we wear clothes unlike all other animals ? Why do we appear to be different from all other life-forms ? Why are we separated from God ? And it shows a yearning in humans for a perfection of existence that they have never known but nonetheless seem to know of.

[Philboid Studge]

I think it is human nature, because humans have free-will. And I think we are created to be able to choose good and bad outcomes. And I think we are created to be able to act on those choices.

Now I guess you'll have another Why ? question about this answer. And I think the answer is "relationship". I think the elements of human nature above are essential to allow relationship between the creator and the creature. The closest I come to an explanation is to say that the prize of allowing real relationship with God is greater than the consequences of allowing free-will.
Setting aside the issue of whether God knew what Eve would do beforehand (which is rather disturbing, in my view), may I suggest that Eve acted on her free will in much the same way I became an atheist: My lack of belief (or faith) is a product of my education and experience, all of which came from God, according to believers, just like everything Eve had on hand to make her decisions. If I'm to be punished for that in some way (let's say eternal separation from God), then I not only deserve it, but crave it. Maybe God didn't kick them out of Eden after all -- maybe they walked out in a huff.

[thomas]

Setting aside the issue of whether God knew what Eve would do beforehand (which is rather disturbing, in my view),
I agree that coming to a view that can accomodate an omniscient God and free-will in humans is a tricky task. I sometimes think I've got all that taped down, but other times end up confused by the concept.

may I suggest that Eve acted on her free will in much the same way I became an atheist: My lack of belief (or faith) is a product of my education and experience, all of which came from God, according to believers, just like everything Eve had on hand to make her decisions. If I'm to be punished for that in some way (let's say eternal separation from God), then I not only deserve it, but crave it. Maybe God didn't kick them out of Eden after all -- maybe they walked out in a huff.
In a sense, Christianity agrees with what you are saying. I wouldn't exactly equate the fall with what you experience but I think your error and Eve's error are of the same category.

I think what you are saying is that even if God did exist you would reject Him. In terms of you craving eternal separation from God, I think that is what God is deciding to allow when he gives you free-will. The only other option appears to be to force you to accept him, which seems to deny the possibility of relationship.

[Philboid Studge]

I think what you are saying is that even if God did exist you would reject Him.
I would certainly reject Him if he meted out punishment for people acting according to their nature (and/or nurture). What else can I do, pretend?

I wouldn't exactly equate the fall with what you experience ...
Well, I'm not really equating it, either. Just an analogy that points out we -- Eve and I -- can only make decisions based on what we have on hand. Eve and I go way back. Incidentally there's a rather interesting take on the Fall here (http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/whm2000/stone2.html).

Excerpt:

"So into the myth of how the world began, the story that the Levites offered as the explanation of the creation of all existence, they place the advisory serpent and the woman who accepted its counsel, eating of the tree that gave her the understanding of what 'only the gods knew' - the secret of sex - how to create life."

[Lundie]

Why did God create the Tree of Knowledge in the first place? It seems pretty redundant if God put it there then forbid anyone to partake of its fruits. And even if he did have to put it there as some sort of decoration for his Garden, why did he have to put it at such an obvious spot instead of a few thousand miles away? If god is omnipotent and omniprescient, he would surely have known that Eve would've disobyed his command. So why then did he not do anything to forestall her? Seems like the big G is just toying with us.

[Tenspace]

I consider Genesis so ridiculous that it invalidates the rest of the bible.
If you look at the story as a myth it is less ridiculous. It is attempting to answer questions about why the world works the way it does. Why is there suffering ? Why do we wear clothes unlike all other animals ? Why do we appear to be different from all other life-forms ? Why are we separated from God ? And it shows a yearning in humans for a perfection of existence that they have never known but nonetheless seem to know of.
I do understand your pov, but it belittles the human intelligence to the point of silliness. Yes, 2000 years ago we didn't understand thunder and lightning, and other natural phenomena.

I'm sure you'll agree that those who adhere to a strong literal interpretation of Genesis are deluded. But I contend that even viewing Genesis as from a mythological viewpoint, its explanations are just as ridiculous. For example:

Why do we wear clothes unlike other animals? Because Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and therefore mankind became ashamed of being naked.

Why do we appear different from other lifeforms? Because God created us that way, in his image.

I don't know about the perfection comment. I don't see life as teleological.

Tenspace

[HeWhoAsks]

Why did God create the Tree of Knowledge in the first place? It seems pretty redundant if God put it there then forbid anyone to partake of its fruits. And even if he did have to put it there as some sort of decoration for his Garden, why did he have to put it at such an obvious spot instead of a few thousand miles away? If god is omnipotent and omniprescient, he would surely have known that Eve would've disobyed his command. So why then did he not do anything to forestall her? Seems like the big G is just toying with us.
Theists and/or Christians will often answer this by positing or defending free will (God gave us free will, even though he knows what we will do), but creating the Tree of Knowledge in Eden strains the credulity of this answer.

An analogy would be putting something shiny and attractive but deadly (a sharp and pretty knive) out where your children could play with them. You know they will be attracted to them, so you tell them "don't play with those knives," *but then you leave them out where they can be tempted.* Would you *ever* do that on purpose to your children when they could be seriously harmed? No, because you love them. There is absolutely no reason to tempt them: it's not a test, it's not a game, it's real life and your real kids' blood on the floor. Which is why God's love of Adam and Eve is a joke.

[thomas]

I think the tree is only a problem for literalists. I don't think there ever was a tree as such.

[lee]

I think the tree is only a problem for literalists. I don't think there ever was a tree as such.
Hi Thomas, do you think that there was a literal Adam and Eve?

[FiberglassDolphin]

In my view, the flood and the eden story are early myths, that contain essential truths about who we are, why we are here and about our relationship to God and his character.

[Bullas]

HeWhoAsks wrote:
An analogy would be putting something shiny and attractive but deadly (a sharp and pretty knive) out where your children could play with them. You know they will be attracted to them, so you tell them "don't play with those knives," *but then you leave them out where they can be tempted.* Would you *ever* do that on purpose to your children when they could be seriously harmed? No, because you love them. There is absolutely no reason to tempt them: it's not a test, it's not a game, it's real life and your real kids' blood on the floor. Which is why God's love of Adam and Eve is a joke.
I'd have to agree with this. God doesn’t exactly come across as the ideal father figure in the garden of Eden. A deity with this kind of mentality has got a point to prove and if Adam, Eve and all their future descendants have to pay the price for this lesson then so be it. He certainly isn't going to be slowed down by love

I think Douglas Adams had the best analogy,


God puts an apple tree in the middle of the Garden of Eden and says, do what you like guys, oh, but don't eat the apple. Surprise surprise, they eat it and he leaps out from behind a bush shouting "Gotcha." It wouldn't have made any difference if they hadn't eaten it....Because if you're dealing with somebody who has the sort of mentality which likes leaving hats on the pavement with bricks under them, you know perfectly well they won't give up. They'll get you in the end.
- Douglas Adams

[HeWhoAsks]

I think the tree is only a problem for literalists. I don't think there ever was a tree as such.
There is still a big problem if the tree story is a myth or exact reality. Either way, it makes no sense, see my post 126. Further, if parts of it do make sense and other parts don't, then we are left with every individual grabbing whatever meaning they like out of it and ignoring whatever they like. So it can mean anything to anyone. What good is that? Something that means anything means nothing.

[Philboid Studge]

An analogy would be putting something shiny and attractive but deadly (a sharp and pretty knive) out where your children could play with them
Some idiot made a similar analogy back in post #42. He added the cruel twist that the parent (God) wasn't really "testing" his children, since he knew in advance exactly what the kids would do. I said it before and I'll say it again: sadistic prick.

[thomas]

These analogies are all false. There is no shiny knife. The problem wasn't the presence of the tree, the problem was the obedience or otherwise of the people. The tree really just shows that God created us with a nature that could choose to obey him or not and with the opportunity to make the choice to do that or not. All of this is part of the necessary conditions for a relationship to occur between a creator and his creatures.

[Philboid Studge]

The tree really just shows that God created us with a nature that could choose to obey him or not and with the opportunity to make the choice to do that or not ...
We're heading perilously back to square one on this but I gotta disagree. Because if "God created us with a nature that choose to obey him or not," then why did we choose "not"? If you say it's because Eve "thought her opinion and desires were more important than obeying the command of God," then I say she was merely following her nature, as God created her. Yep, square one.

I'm willing to concede the whole Free Willy thing: maybe it's possible that creatures can live in a predetermined world but still think and act and even believe that they have free will, whether they really do or not. But that doesn't excuse the Creator for His cruelty. He knew what their choices would be from jump. Didn't He?

[thomas]

I think Eve did follow her nature, as God created her. I just don't see the cruelty, only the opportunity for relationship that is created. The price of the ability to choose the good is the inevitability of choosing the bad.

[HeWhoAsks]

These analogies are all false. There is no shiny knife. The problem wasn't the presence of the tree, the problem was the obedience or otherwise of the people. The tree really just shows that God created us with a nature that could choose to obey him or not and with the opportunity to make the choice to do that or not. All of this is part of the necessary conditions for a relationship to occur between a creator and his creatures.
I think you're talking about the situation apart from any specific command(ment) or rule from god, and maybe that's how you see the Eden story as a myth: not as something that literally happened, with a tree and a snake, but only as a story, the point of which, not the facts of the storay (which never really happend) is crucial: obey your god. Let me know if I've got that right. If I have got it, we can actually put an end to this thread, as I was only arguing from the assumption that the Eden story was actual fact.

But we then must start another thread, because there is a problem that follows automatically: on what basis do you decide that any passage in the Bible is a myth or is actual fact?

[HeWhoAsks]

I think Eve did follow her nature, as God created her. I just don't see the cruelty, only the opportunity for relationship that is created. The price of the ability to choose the good is the inevitability of choosing the bad.
How about this: if god created us with the ability to choose, and we make a choice, it is not only us who are responsible for that choice. God must also be repsonsible, in part, because he gave us the ability to make choices. Had god not given us the ability to choose, we wouldn't be able to choose and thus he wouldn't be responsible, in part, for our actions. God's responsibility is a meta-responsibility.

It wouldn't be so bad to ignore this meta-responsibility if the consequences (eternal damnation) weren't so big.

[thomas]

I don't think God owes us anything. After all He's the creator and we're the created. How could He ? In a sense God is responsible for giving us the freedom to choose Him or deny Him. For me that's preferable to being forced to obey, despite the inherent downsides.

The consequences of disobeying are big, but easily avoided.

[Philboid Studge]

I just don't see the cruelty...
If God knew how it would all play out in advance, it was cruel. If He didn't know, then I'll give Him a pass.

[Lurker]

I just don't see the cruelty...
If God knew how it would all play out in advance, it was cruel. If He didn't know, then I'll give Him a pass.
This ties in with our morality discussion on the other thread. "Cruel" according to what moral standard?

[Another brick in the wall]

The consequences of disobeying are big, but easily avoided.
The same could be said for a homicidal maniac holding a gun to your head.

[thomas]

If you're trying to equate a homicidal maniac holding a gun to your head and God then I deny the analogy. God is not a madman or lunatic, who acts irrationally. If you obey the homicidal maniac isn't there a risk he's going to shoot you anyway ?

[Another brick in the wall]

Possibly. But isn't there a possibility that god might just damn you to hell anyway? Just for kicks?

Incindentally, what's not irrational about sacrificing yourself to yourself to chang a rule that you made?

[thomas]

Possibly. But isn't there a possibility that god might just damn you to hell anyway? Just for kicks?
The difference is that a maniac is irrational by definition. God is perfect by definition and can be trusted to do what He says.

Incindentally, what's not irrational about sacrificing yourself to yourself to chang a rule that you made?
How about you start a new thread on that topic ?

[Another brick in the wall]

How do you know that god is perfect? I swear, most people put more thought into buying a used car than the religion they're raised in.

[Tenspace]

How do you know that god is perfect? I swear, most people put more thought into buying a used car than the religion they're raised in.
It's part of the plan:

God is in my fingers
God is in my head
God is in the trigger
God is in the lead

God is freedom,
God is truth
God is power and God is proof
God is fashion, God is fame
God gives meaning, God gives pain

- Porcupine Tree (http://porcupinetree.com/index.cfm), "Halo"

[Philboid Studge]

This ties in with our morality discussion on the other thread. "Cruel" according to what moral standard?
I don't know that cruelty has to be fixed to moral standards. Lions eating their own young strikes me as cruel too, but it's hardly immoral.

I agree that this ties in with the other thread, and over there it occurs to me that many of these atheist-theist discussions come down to this: athesists simply don't believe in spirits.

Meanwhile, what's up with God? Did He know everything in advance or not? (Last time I asked this I think you brought up the importance of free will, which is a separate if related issue.) Did He know that giving humans free will would ultimately condemn them to painful childbirth, a life of sweat and toil, death, and shame?

[Viole]

I don't think God owes us anything. After all He's the creator and we're the created.
We, who you claim don't even create our children but merely host god's creation, are responsible for our children's livelihood for nearly twenty years. Marry Shelly's Dr. Frankenstein had a responsibility to his creation that he failed to complete.

A god would a responsibility to his creations, which he is clearly failing to complete.

[thomas]

The failure isn't clear to me ? What would God's responsibility be and in what way has He failed in your view ?

[thomas]

Meanwhile, what's up with God? Did He know everything in advance or not? (Last time I asked this I think you brought up the importance of free will, which is a separate if related issue.) Did He know that giving humans free will would ultimately condemn them to painful childbirth, a life of sweat and toil, death, and shame?
I think the answer is that yes, God knew what would happen. And that He determined that the up-side of free-will was worth the down-side.

A piss-poor analogy would be that I allow and encourage my son to learn to skateboard even though I know that allowing that will result in pain for him as he continually falls off. Why ? Because the resulting joy from accomplishing the task is worth the pain.

[thomas]

How do you know that god is perfect?
I said perfect by definition, which in this case means I looked it up in the dictionary. Another approach would be to say that Bible says that God's way, will and works are perfect and I trust the authority of that source.

[Philboid Studge]

A piss-poor analogy would be that I allow and encourage my son to learn to skateboard even though I know that allowing that will result in pain for him as he continually falls off. Why ? Because the resulting joy from accomplishing the task is worth the pain.
A better analogy is that you buy your son a skateboard, then forbid him to use it. When he does -- as you well knew he would -- you punish him for his disobedience. His punishment is that you throw him out of the house with the skateboard. The upside is that he gets to learn how to skateboard all by himself, with all the attendant scapes and bruises, without any help from you. The longer-term upside: he's freed from the tyrant at last.

[thomas]

Your main point being that you don't agree that if there was a God that He would be doing the right thing by granting free-will, because the downsides outweigh the upsides ?

[Philboid Studge]

Your main point being that you don't agree that if there was a God that He would be doing the right thing by granting free-will, because the downsides outweigh the upsides ?
The free will doesn't bother me so much as the punishment. Is it really necessary?

Similarly, I don't think of atheism as a choice. It's more like an inevitable conclusion based on all the available evidence. If it turns out to be wrong, I'm going to be punished? I suppose I could pretend to believe, but He'd see through that in a second, wouldn't He?

[thomas]

You call it a punishment, I call it a free-will choice that God will respect. I think the whole punishment thing is just pointing out to you what a less than optimal choice rejecting your creator would be.

I respect your view that the evidence isn't sufficient for you to believe, although I obviously disagree with you on that one. I'm less respectful about your attempts to portray my views about God as vile or incoherent. I think atheism falls into the mire with its invective against Christianity. There really doesn't seem to be a need to make the wild and outrageous claims about its iniquity that are regularly made. A polite, "I don't believe you are right and here is why" would seem to be sufficient. ( Note in advance to prevent 5 pages of posts : I'm not saying that everything that is done in the name of Christianity is good or proper or moral, just that the concept itself is good and proper and moral and coherent ).

[Philboid Studge]

I'm less respectful about your attempts to portray my views about God as vile or incoherent.
Well, I don't remember portraying your views as incoherent. If I did, it very well could have been my own fault, as coherence is a two-way street. As for the vileness, what can I do? If God is as you've described Him here, He is vile, in my view. I'm trying to understand how a thinking person like you could worship Him. I mean no disrespect to your views, and I'll do what I can to keep it to "I don't believe you are right and here is why," but I'm afraid my cynicism will always be just below the surface.

[thomas]

Let me try and explain why I'm mystified at you thinking that God is vile. It seems obvious to me that God's gift of free-will to humans is a necessary pre-condition to any kind of relationship with Him that would have value. It also seems obvious to me that choosing to accept that relationship with God must be a better thing for us created beings than rejecting that relationship. So to me the fact that there must be something worse for those who reject God than those who accept Him is an inevitable consequence of the chance to have a relationship with God.

Where is the vileness in this view ? Put it another way, in what way would the non-vile God be different ?

[Tenspace]

I think it comes down to the fact that Thomas places importance on having a defined direction in life, and he finds the definition in his religion. His is a reward/punishment worldview, and he is baffled by those of us who choose punishment.

OTOH, I personally don't view life as predicated existence. It is easy for me to stand outside of religion and consider the whole thing an unnecessary add-on to one's life. I don't consider myself any "better" because of this, but unfortunately it is adjunct to my position as an atheist.

Thomas, a simple example which presents the vileness from our viewpoint, would be for you to look at something of which you have no passion, like the story of Prometheus (mentioned in another thread). Do you think Zeus is vile because of the punishment he delivered to Prometheus?

Tenspace

[Philboid Studge]

It also seems obvious to me that choosing to accept that relationship with God must be a better thing for us created beings than rejecting that relationship.
As I said, it's not a choice. If I believed in God, there would be some sort of "relationship."

It also seems obvious to me that choosing to accept that relationship with God must be a better thing ...
Can you see why I think this isn't about choice? I could no more "choose" God than I could choose to watch the sun rise in the west. I don't "reject" God; it's that the very idea beggars credulity.

The vileness is in getting punished for following my nature (as Eve followed hers). You say, "You call it a punishment, I call it a free-will choice that God will respect." Well, that distinguishes you from every other Christian I've ever heard of, and if God actually ends up respecting my disbelief in Him, then hats off to both of you. Are there any other consequences I can expect, besides His respect? If I die and my death equals non-existence as I believe it will, then I'll concede your God is not so vile. But I repeat the gist of a comment I made to lurker on another thread: You must have had experiences that instill you with faith. Why God would allow some of His children that advantage while keeping the rest of us in the dark baffles me. I don't know if that's vile, per se, but it strikes me as unfair at least.

I suppose a non-vile God would supply everyone with the same chance at this relationship, for starters. If you're about to say 'He does and we do,' then I suggest we start another thread.

[thomas]

I think it comes down to the fact that Thomas places importance on having a defined direction in life, and he finds the definition in his religion. His is a reward/punishment worldview, and he is baffled by those of us who choose punishment.

OTOH, I personally don't view life as predicated existence. It is easy for me to stand outside of religion and consider the whole thing an unnecessary add-on to one's life. I don't consider myself any "better" because of this, but unfortunately it is adjunct to my position as an atheist.

Thomas, a simple example which presents the vileness from our viewpoint, would be for you to look at something of which you have no passion, like the story of Prometheus (mentioned in another thread). Do you think Zeus is vile because of the punishment he delivered to Prometheus?

Tenspace
It's more that I think the Christianity is true based on the evidence that I see. I don't get baffled if you say "I don't agree the evidence is either right or convincing or substantial". I do get baffled if you say "even if the evidence is correct then it's immoral or vile". For me that view just doesn't stack up.

I don't see the analogy at all between God allowing people to choose to reject Him and Zeus' enforced torture of Prometheus ?